Barrier Method vs. NFP

[Questionful]

Periodic abstinence is not frustrating the marital act. The couple might feel frustrated in having to abstain.

Periodic abstinence is not what’s frustrating the act. Periodic abstinence is fine. Having sex when there is no egg present to be fertilized is frustrating the act. You’re not abstaining because abstinence makes you infertile. What you’re doing is waiting for the moment where there isn’t an egg to fertilize, so sperm can travel to where the egg would be, and die there. Even though it’s natural, direct action is being taken to deliberately frustrate the act of sperm getting to the egg.

No one thinks it’s odd to show temperence in regards to eating. We can’t eat all day long, or eat unhealthy foods all day long. Yet abstaining from sexual contact is considered too “frustrating”

Consuming food in order to stay alive can’t be compared to sex. I’m not saying that abstinence is frustrating, I’m using the terminology that the opposition uses to describe artificial means of birth control. Heck, let’s just say it’s a term that’s been used against birth control in general, as NFP is not saved from fundamentalists who insist that sex is purely procreative in nature.

A man who uses NFP* never *seperates the unitive from thhe procreative. If the wife is not fertile at a specific point, that is up to God.

You think that separating the two with your own hands is what makes it immoral. A man, with his constant fertility, only chooses to have sex with his partner when she is not fertile, given the tell-tale signs that such a thing is true. It’s not up to GOD whether or not she’s fertile or infertile, as the couple has already come to the conclusion that the wife is infertile.

No one did anything to alter the act.

What they did was time the act to “guiltlessly” reproduced the ends of an artificial form of birth control. If you’re equating the evil of the act to the degree of human intervention in preventing conception, then the practitioners are, in my mind, just as guilty as those using the condoms.

However, in the case of the couple using a barrier method, there’s the possibility that they’re having sex during the fertile stages of the cycle, which means that procreation is still possible.

 

[Seatuck]

Yes, but what I’m trying to say here is that structuring your sex life around infertility is frustrating the marital act. It’s not the “natural” method of shoot and pray. You’re frustrating the act by putting a natural barrier that you’ve timed and exploited.

I’m asking that if this is morally acceptable, then why aren’t barrier methods? Simply because we’ve put a man-made barrier in place of the one that was already there?

Either you just have a mental block about this or you are deliberately being obtuse. Did you read any of the links I gave you?

One is doing something to damage the meaning and purpose of the act. The other is just not doing the act. There is nothing immoral about a couple not doing the act when it is acceptable to both of them. You have said your point over and over and everyone understands what you are saying however you cannot frustrate the act if you do not do the act. Man and wife do not have to be constantly performing the marital act.
God created the menstrual cycle. There are fertile periods and infertile periods. He gave us reason. He seems to have intended that we understand and make use of both within the sacramental character of marriage.This is not to say that there is anything wrong with a total providential method.

 

[Questionful]

Questionful,

I think that there’s a lot of confusion regarding these topics. The problem is that the philosophy which undergirds these distinctions has been thoroughly eviscerated in the contemporary scene. We tend to be reflexive consequentialists, and so we find it very difficult to understand how two acts which may look identical, and have identical results can nevertheless be two different acts with two different moral qualities.

Part of the answer is that we need to enlarge the discussion in the debate and investigate a more classical moral theory which is rooted in Aristotelian conceptions of action.

If you read Church documents you’ll see that they insist on evaluating acts by means of their “objects.” This terminology is quite opaque for most of us.

What it ends up coming down to-- regardless of the similarity of outcome-- is that the contraceptive act and the conjugal act have different objects which distinguishes their morality. The contraceptive act is intrinsically evil because the object of the contraceptive act is necessary opposed to the human good.

That’s an extremely summarized explanation-- and I’m just starting to study this deeply myself. I highly recommend that you start studying this as well before you take the well-intentioned reasonings and explanations here as finally definitive, when they may perhaps converge on the ultimate reasons, they nevertheless lack the philosophical uumph to really explain it to you.

The book I’m reading is a dense little book called “The Teleological Grammar of the Moral Act” by Stephen A. Long. It presupposes a lot of knowledge in philosophy, but if you want really ultimate and foundational answers, you’re going to have to start studying the traditional distinctions about objects, intentions and ends.

God bless,
Rob

Indeed, Rob.
I’m basically arguing the same thing as you, but in a different manner.
NFP is an act of contraception. Contraception is the moral object.
How can NFP be justified whereas a barrier method would not be justified?
They are both forms of contraception. Contra-Conception.

 

[Questionful]

No, the Church doesn’t believe that that is the reason.

And rather than “holier” I think we should say “moral” or “immoral” or degrees thereof. (No big deal, but “holier” often seems to be connected with personal piety, yet we’re discussing objective morality.)

Then, describe to me the Church’s formal position on the intrinsic evils of barrier methods. That is, quote the positions the Papal Encyclicals of Castii Connubii, and Humanae Vitae provide.

 

[Questionful]

Either you just have a mental block about this or you are deliberately being obtuse. Did you read any of the links I gave you?

One is doing something to damage the meaning and purpose of the act. The other is just not doing the act. There is nothing immoral about a couple not doing the act when it is acceptable to both of them. You have said your point over and over and everyone understands what you are saying. You cannot frustrate the act if you do not do the act. God created the menstrual cycle. There are fertile periods and infertile periods. He gave us reason. He seems to have intended that we understand and make use of both within the sacramental character of marriage.

I believe that I have at one point or another. They don’t provide any new, clear reasons as to why NFP is morally acceptable while barrier methods are not.

I’d also like to point out that GOD created fundamental aspect of barriers.

Also, to judge GOD’s will of the marital act solely on the mechanics of a woman’s menstrual cycle is flawed. Arguing from Nature is opposed to Theology.

 

[RobNY]

Indeed, Rob.
I’m basically arguing the same thing as you, but in a different manner.
NFP is an act of contraception. Contraception is the moral object.
How can NFP be justified whereas a barrier method would not be justified?
They are both forms of contraception. Contra-Conception.

Questionful,

“Object” is not being taken in a colloquial sense. It is being taken in a specific, philosophical sense.

You are confusing “object” with “end.”

I wish I had a firmer grasp, because I’d be happy to sketch it all out, but I don’t think I can responsibly do that at this point.

I highly recommend hitting some sort of introductory work on traditional moral theory (David Oderberg has a good book called “Moral Theory”), and then moving on to the other book I recommended.

God bless,
Rob

 

[Seatuck]

I believe that I have at one point or another. They don’t provide any new, clear reasons as to why NFP is morally acceptable while barrier methods are not.

I’d also like to point out that GOD created fundamental aspect of barriers.

Also, to judge GOD’s will of the marital act solely on the mechanics of a woman’s menstrual cycle is flawed. Arguing from Nature is opposed to Theology.

You seem to think that the church teaches that husband and wife must be trying to get pregnant at every marital act. There is no evidence to believe that God intends that since he created a menstrual cycle with fertile and infertile periods.There is no evidence that the spouses should not engage in the marital act if pregnancy is impossible.

 

[Seatuck]

I believe that I have at one point or another. They don’t provide any new, clear reasons as to why NFP is morally acceptable while barrier methods are not.

**I’d also like to point out that GOD created fundamental aspect of barriers. **

Also, to judge GOD’s will of the marital act solely on the mechanics of a woman’s menstrual cycle is flawed. Arguing from Nature is opposed to Theology.

What do you mean by the bold?

 

[Questionful]

And what does this have to do with the discussion of an intrinsic evil? The truths of Catholicism are not given to us by popular vote! They are handed down to us through the Scriptures and Tradition as taught by the successors of the Apostles.

I’d also like to dispel this notion.

The Church’s stance on contraception are not based in Scripture or in Tradition.

Where did GOD say to his Chosen People in the Scriptures that sex during the wive’s infertile portion of the cycle is moral? Where did He say that knowingly avoiding one’s pregnancy through their Biology is moral? Then how did the Church come to it’s standing on NFP? Was it Tradition that formed our opinion of which sexual practices are morally acceptable?

No. If anything, the Tradition defines sex as only procreative. NFP was an innovation. Tradition, and openness to the “secondary” aspect of sex was an innovation, and a very recent innovation at that. The first Encyclical, or formal teaching on Tradition of this idea was in 1930. How can you say that this teaching is based on Tradition?

 

[Questionful]

You seem to think that the husband and wife must be trying to get pregnant at every marital act. There is no evidence to believe that God intends that since he created a menstrual cycle with fertile and infertile periods.There is no evidence that the spouses should not engage in the marital act if pregnancy is impossible.

Did GOD create the menstrual cycle because there would be fertile and infertile periods, though? This question can’t be answered by man. However, we can ask ourselves if it’s moral to exploit infertility, when we believe that sex has a primary, procreative property, and a secondary, unitive property.

If you’re going to exploit natural infertility, what’s wrong with exploiting the fundamental truth of barriers – objects that obstruct the passage of material.

This what I mean by GOD creating the fundamental aspect of a barrier. Barriers are present in nature, and even in sex. What’s wrong with employing an extra barrier to sex to separate the two gametes?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Did GOD create the menstrual cycle because there would be fertile and infertile periods, though? This question can’t be answered by man. However, we can ask ourselves if it’s moral to exploit infertility, when we believe that sex has a primary, procreative property, and a secondary, unitive property.

If you’re going to exploit natural infertility, what’s wrong with exploiting the fundamental truth of barriers – objects that obstruct the passage of material.

This what I mean by GOD creating the fundamental aspect of a barrier. Barriers are present in nature, and even in sex. What’s wrong with employing an extra barrier to sex to separate the two gametes?

You seem to be trying to argue:
a. Sexual intimacy between husband and wife is only moral during fertile times
b. Using a condom is the same as abstaining, because both “frustrate” the unitive and procreative.

So, would non fertile couples be allowed to marry and be intimate? Do couples give up intimacy when the wife has reached menopause?

 

[Questionful]

You seem to be trying to argue:
a. Sexual intimacy between husband and wife is only moral during fertile times
b. Using a condom is the same as abstaining, because both “frustrate” the unitive and procreative.

So, would non fertile couples be allowed to marry and be intimate? Do couples give up intimacy when the wife has reached menopause?

I don’t believe 1 personally, I only raise the question to those who chooose to support NFP and oppose barriers on the grounds of procreation being necessary to the conjugal act. It’s an argument meant to make you question your support for NFP in light of your condemnations of the barrier methods. I want a person to ask themselves, with full knowleldge of how both methods work, if the either of the contraceptive means are any more moral than the others? If so, then why? Procreation is avoided by both means, and both means do not inhibit the unitive nature of the act. The question asked after is whether or not it’s moral to use foreign substances to meet the desired ends.

 

[momor]

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!

I have been so confused about this very topic and the debate has been wonderfully helpful. I really need the back and forth dialogue of opposing ideas to help me understand. I’m afraid moral theology is often as clear as mud to me.

While the entire thread has been helpful, I found the dialogue between Surriter and Questionful to be the most clear and would like to direct my comments to them first.

Let me summarize very simply some elements I see in your discussion so far:

1. Avoidance of pregnancy for good reason is moral
2. Both NFP and Barrier methods are contraception by dictionary definition
3. Conception = ovum + sperm
4. Barrier methods remove the sperm from the conception equation
5. NFP removes the egg from the conception equation
6. Both methods involve the use of some technology outside of the natural act (a physical barrier or NFP methodologies)
7. Both methods are open to life due to potential for failure in the method used
8. NFP is more moral than a barrier because it involves abstinence during fertility
9. Barriers are just as moral as NFP

So it seems to me that what is implied by NFP but has not been said is that for a couple to be acting morally in avoiding pregnancy there must be an element of sacrifice or mortification (the abstinence) involved.
Is this the Catholic teaching?
Because it really seems like that is the only thing that ultimately separates your 2 positions.

 

[Brendan]

If you’re saying that you can’t hold back your fertility and claim spiritual union, then you’re arguing against the NFP method as well, which the Church endorses. The only difference between NFP and a barrier method is which part of the equation they try to subtract.

That is not true!!

With NFP, you are giving your fertility and accepting your spouses fertility as God created fertility to be. God created fertility in a woman to have fertile times and infertile times. NFP accepts that. Barrier methods do not.

Barrier methods attempt to change one person’s fertility to be OTHER than how God created it.

NFP, on the other hand, is fully unitive, as you are accepting the full person, with their procreative powers exactly how God created that person to be.

Barrier methods are non-unitive, as one or both parties are attempting to withhold their God given fertitily, or to alter their procreative powers to be other than how God created it to be. Thus they are rejecting a God given aspect of their spouse. Rejecting one’s spouse in the the marital act is the antithesis of “unitive”

 

[surritter]

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!

I have been so confused about this very topic and the debate has been wonderfully helpful. I really need the back and forth dialogue of opposing ideas to help me understand. I’m afraid moral theology is often as clear as mud to me.

While the entire thread has been helpful, I found the dialogue between Surriter and Questionful to be the most clear and would like to direct my comments to them first.

Let me summarize very simply some elements I see in your discussion so far:

1. Avoidance of pregnancy for good reason is moral
2. Both NFP and Barrier methods are contraception by dictionary definition
3. Conception = ovum + sperm
4. Barrier methods remove the sperm from the conception equation
5. NFP removes the egg from the conception equation
6. Both methods involve the use of some technology outside of the natural act (a physical barrier or NFP methodologies)
7. Both methods are open to life due to potential for failure in the method used
8. NFP is more moral than a barrier because it involves abstinence during fertility
9. Barriers are just as moral as NFP

So it seems to me that what is implied by NFP but has not been said is that for a couple to be acting morally in avoiding pregnancy there must be an element of sacrifice or mortification (the abstinence) involved.
Is this the Catholic teaching?
Because it really seems like that is the only thing that ultimately separates your 2 positions.

Thanks for distilling our long-winded dialogue into some simple elements! Here’s my take:

Catholic moral theology would say that points #6, 7, and 9 are not true.

NFP does NOT use “some technology outside of the natural act.” It maintains the natural act as it is – if the woman is infertile, it is not because of the couple’s use of calendars, thermometers, or any other technology.

As for #7, the premise of that statement conflicts with statement #2. And the statement is contrary to common sense: if I seek to avoid pregnancy, I am not all geeked up about the possibility of the method’s failure!

No comment needed for #9, since that’s the focus of the entire thread.

Also, I would not agree with you about the summary statement. While NFP involves a degree of mortification, it is not the “why” of NFP’s morality. NFP’s morality as an act is due to the fact that it doesn’t directly divorce the procreative and unitive aspects of marital intercourse.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Also when a couple uses contraceptves, why do they do it?

To avoid getting pregnant is one reason. But the other reason is to be able to have intercourse as much as they like, irrespective of being fertile or infertile.

When a couple is using NFP, why do they do it? At times, they do it to avoid getting pregnant. They choose to not do what causes pregnancy. The don’t have relations on fertile days.

If God intended us to become pregnant with every act of intercourse, he would have designed us to be more like Panda bears. They live solitary lives and only come together infrequently in order to produce little Pandas.

God designed us humans to actually want to be with our spouse. He also gave us just a couple of days per month where conception is possible. If husband and wife come together during the fertile time it needs to happen without altering the act by making it infertile. So no condoms, no pills, no coitus interuptus. If a couple comes together during the infertile time, they are still being open to life, because they have not altered the act by using any product to cause infertility.

If we were only allowed to come together to become pregnant, ovulation would not be predictable. We would only be alllowed to have relations before menopause. Relations during pregnancy, during lactation, after menopause would be forbidden…and the Church would communicate those things to us.

 

[Seatuck]

Did GOD create the menstrual cycle because there would be fertile and infertile periods, though?
It is possible. He certainly allowed it. This question can’t be answered by man. However, we can ask ourselves if it’s moral to exploit infertility, when we believe that sex has a primary, procreative property, and a secondary, unitive property. It is not exploitation if done with the correct intent. NFP needs to be done with the appropriate intent. Not arguing with you there at all.

If you’re going to exploit natural infertility, what’s wrong with exploiting the fundamental truth of barriers – objects that obstruct the passage of material.
The couple is not holding back any part of themselves during the marital act with NFP as they are with a barrier. Not really sure why you aren’t understanding this.

This what I mean by GOD creating the fundamental aspect of a barrier. Barriers are present in nature, and even in sex. What’s wrong with employing an extra barrier to sex to separate the two gametes?

Because it destroys the unitive and procreative meaning of the marital act when it is undertaken. With NFP the meaning is not destroyed as the couple is not holding back anything from the persons who they are at that moment thereby not destroying the sacramental meaning of the act.

 

[Questionful]

That is not true!!

With NFP, you are giving your fertility and accepting your spouses fertility as God created fertility to be. God created fertility in a woman to have fertile times and infertile times. NFP accepts that. Barrier methods do not.

Barrier methods attempt to change one person’s fertility to be OTHER than how God created it.

NFP, on the other hand, is fully unitive, as you are accepting the full person, with their procreative powers exactly how God created that person to be.

Barrier methods are non-unitive, as one or both parties are attempting to withhold their God given fertitily, or to alter their procreative powers to be other than how God created it to be. Thus they are rejecting a God given aspect of their spouse. Rejecting one’s spouse in the the marital act is the antithesis of “unitive”

Barrier methods do not change or alter a person’s fertility. They keep a barrier between sperm and egg.

In NFP, there’s no female fertility in the act. The essence of contraceptive NFP is about withholding fertility, and abstaining from sex until the wife is infertile. So, the only one who’s fertile in the sexual act would be the male. Let me reiterate this, female fertility is not involved when the couple is having sex and NFP is used for contraceptive purposes. If you time the act correctly, there is no fertility.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Barrier methods do not change or alter a person’s fertility. They keep a barrier between sperm and egg.
In NFP, there’s no female fertility in the act. The essence of contraceptive NFP is about withholding fertility, and abstaining from sex until the wife is infertile. So, the only one who’s fertile in the sexual act would be the male. Let me reiterate this, female fertility is not involved when the couple is having sex and NFP is used for contraceptive purposes. If you time the act correctly, there is no fertility.

Come on. People use condoms in order to have sex without conceiving. Of course they are altering fertility. They are using a condom to prevent a pregnancy, all while doing what causes a pregnancy to begin with!

 

[Questionful]

If God intended us to become pregnant with every act of intercourse, he would have designed us to be more like Panda bears. They live solitary lives and only come together infrequently in order to produce little Pandas.

God designed us humans to actually want to be with our spouse. He also gave us just a couple of days per month where conception is possible. If husband and wife come together during the fertile time it needs to happen without altering the act by making it infertile. So no condoms, no pills, no coitus interuptus. If a couple comes together during the infertile time, they are still being open to life, because they have not altered the act by using any product to cause infertility.

If we were only allowed to come together to become pregnant, ovulation would not be predictable. We would only be alllowed to have relations before menopause. Relations during pregnancy, during lactation, after menopause would be forbidden…and the Church would communicate those things to us.

This is exactly what’s wrong with the argument for NFP. You can’t argue GOD’s intent based on human observations of Biological Mechanics. For one, human knowledge is flawed. Ever hear of Aristotlian Biology? Look it up and tell me what it says about semen, sperm, and eggs. Yet, it’s argued that the first encyclical on birth control was BASED on this ‘understanding’ of Biology. Secondly, human knowledge of creation can’t relate to Absolute, Divine Knowledge of the Creator. You can’t possibly infer GODs intent from the nature of His work, and the mechanics of sexual nature. Just because we can detect signs of fertility does not mean we should time sex to be infertile. Just because we have hands that can murder and steal doesn’t mean that we should. If you want GOD’s intent, look to his words.